Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?

[ProtectAndHide]

On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 00:18:59 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
> Not everybody shares that view. So, there must be something 
> deeper here: maybe some people are blind (including me), or 
> others have expectations that they carry from other languages, 
> or something else... But look at the contrast: Some people see 
> the same thing as great and some people see it as really really 
> bad.
>

Well, it's true, that we all have preconceived and limited 
notions, about this or that.

But honestly, dithyrambic praise of how D does things is not all 
that helpful.

You talk about being 'free' as a programmer, but that terms only 
seems to apply to your needs.

I'd like to be 'free' to decide on whether I want type privacy, 
or module privacy.

I don't understand the dithyrambic praise, from some D users, for 
D preventing you from doing so (in a way that is truly 'free' - 
as opposed to enforcing a design decision on to the programmer)

Anyway, the 'reality' is, that type privacy can be both 
convenient and inconvient.

Good luck on your path towards that enlightenment ;-)

"Before practicing Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were 
rivers.
While practicing Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and 
rivers are no longer rivers.
After realization, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers 
again."